Imprisonment For Non-Payment Of Fine Must Be Proportionate To Amount Unpaid: Punjab & Haryana High Court In NI Act Case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reduced the sentence of a convict in a cheque bounce case to the period already undergone, while enhancing the compensation payable to the complainant, underscoring the principle that the “cost of liberty must be proportionate” when imprisonment is imposed for non-payment of monetary dues.

Justice Anoop Chitkara said, "The fundamental principle that has emerged as a core doctrinal concern in criminal jurisprudence is the price a convict pays for the curtailment of their freedom due to incarceration for non-payment of fine/compensation amount. How many ounces of flesh does a convict have to pay every day for the inability to pay the money? It was for the Executive to have tabled legislation for the proportionate sentencing, and in its absence, the High Court, which is a primary guardian of an individual's fundamental rights, cannot remain in the cocoon of a deep slumber."

The Court further added that the seeds of proportionate sentencing have now sprouted, and the green shoots are visible in every jurisdiction. To give meaning to the concept of equality and the principle of parity as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the period of imprisonment a convict has to undergo for non-payment of fine and compensation must be equivalent to the money unpaid and consistent with that imposed on similarly placed convicts. Cost of liberty must be proportionate.

The case arose out of dishonour of a cheque amounting to ₹3.80 lakh. The trial Court, vide judgment dated July 2024, convicted the petitioner and imposed one year's imprisonment along with compensation of ₹5.70 lakh. The appellate court affirmed the findings in January 2026.

Before the High Court, the petitioner did not dispute the conviction but sought reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone, citing financial incapacity.

Counsel for the complainant opposed the plea, arguing that if the sentence were to be reduced, the compensation amount should be increased by ₹50,000. The petitioner, however, expressed willingness to accept an increase of ₹40,000.

The Court noted that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner had already undergone imprisonment of 3 months and 11 days. It also examined the proportionality between the amount unpaid and the duration of custody undergone.

Partly allowing the petition, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 138 NI Act, reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone and enhanced the compensation from ₹5.70 lakh to ₹6.10 lakh.

It directed that the compensation, along with accrued interest (if any), be released to the complainant.

The Court also ordered the immediate release of the petitioner, subject to his not being required in any other case.

Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the convict/petitioner.

Mr. Ajay Chauhan, for the complainant (Respondent no. 2)

Title: Gulab Singh v. State of Haryana and another

Click here to read order